Memorandum from RoadPeace (DDD 22)
INTRODUCTION
RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash
victims, welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to reduce the
threat posed by drink and drug impaired drivers.
DEDICATION
This response is dedicated to 18 year old Eluned
Cleverley who was killed on 5 August 2006 by a 24 year old van
driver who was over the limit and speeding on his way to buy more
alcohol in the Wirral. Eluned was walking home with friends after
her father had said that he was unable to pick them up as he had
had a glass of wine. Eluned's family remain devastated at the
death of their daughter by an act of criminal disregard for the
safety of others.
SUMMARY
— The drink drive limit should be reduced
without further delay, given the new NICE estimates of the much
larger casualty savings that could be achieved with a lower limit.
— One year ban would ensure the new limit
was taken seriously. But if this is thought to be a step too far
for a government that was not keen to even reduce the limit, then
shorter bans would be acceptable. But it is important that drink
drivers involved in fatal or injury crashes receive immediate
bans. We would also like to see higher mandatory bans stated for
commercial drivers.
— Extent of impaired drug driving is unknown
and statistics from contributory factors do not help.
— We strongly approve of Sir Peter North's
staged approach to tackling drug driving.
— Drink and drug driving is a serious crime
and capable of much damage to people, not just property. They
deserve to be included under the Offences Brought to Justice with
local borough units expected to do their share of roadside testing.
— Care should be taken not to encourage
any misbelief that impaired driving is dangerous whilst speeding
is acceptable. A review of traffic laws to ensure that there is
consistent treatment with relative burdens of harm is needed.
KEY QUESTIONS
1. Should the permitted blood alcohol limit
be reduced as proposed?
1.1 RoadPeace supported the reduction of
the BAC drink drive limit even before NICE review concluded many
more lives than previously thought would be saved by this measure.
But it was a welcome move by the government to get an independent
estimate of the casualty savings from a lower limit, an encourage
the government to adopt this same approach with speed enforcement
and speed limits.
1.2 But we still maintain that a zero tolerance
(0.2) should apply to all commercial drivers, and ask that this
be revisited, as Sir Peter North has suggested be done with the
limit for young drivers.
2. If so, is the mandatory one year driving
ban appropriate for less severe offenders, at the new (lower)
level?
2.1 We agree with the North Report's conclusion
that having the mandatory minimum one year driving band was key
to reducing drink driving in Britain. We believe that without
this tough approach, attitude to drink driving would have changed
much more slowly.
2.2 We were surprised that it was proposed
for the lower limit as, given how long the government has dragged
its feet about reducing just the drink driving limit. Such boldness
would again create a media storm and thus a self funded publicity
campaign. However, we do not think the one year long driving ban
is a requirement to reducing the drink drive limit and would prefer
to see a shorter driving ban imposed than not have the limit reduced
at all.
2.3 We also call for immediate suspension
of a driving license after a fatal or injury collision involving
a driver over the limit. At present they are allowed to continue
driving until they are found guilty, unless there is evidence
that they are likely to re-offend. We believe that they have already
done enough damage to justify the temporary loss of their license.
2.4 We would also like to see longer mandatory
minimum bans be set for commercial drivers.
3. How severe is the problem of drug driving
and what should be done to address it?
3.1 We agree with the North Report's conclusion
that it is not possible to know the extent of the problem of drug
driving. In 1996, ACPO adopted the policy of breathalysing every
driver after a fatal crash. For years we have called for them
to adopt the policy of drug testing every driver in a fatal crash,
or at least in a night-time fatal crash, which is when we know
drink drive crashes are concentrated. We could have had much better
data on the extent of drug driving (and drink driving) if we had
introduced a consistent policy with drivers in a fatal crash,
or a programme of random testing every year. This should have
been a priority.
3.2 We do not think the findings from the
analysis of Contributory Factors are accurate. We have consistently
argued that these are misleading and collected at the wrong time.
There is no need for them to be immediate guestimates. They should
be collected at the end of the investigation and include the option
of unknown, so that it is not simply yes or no, and the basis
for any conclusive finding.
3.3 We believe that Sir Peter North has
proposed a sensible staged approach to tackling drug driving.
Until the extent of drug driving is known, a practical programme
cannot be developed.
4. What wider costs and benefits are likely
to result from changes to drink and drug driving law?
4.1 Any costs to the pub business could
be offset with increased food and non-alcoholic sales. It was
recently reported that food sales in pubs had already overtaken
that of alcohol.
4.2 Enforcement costs could be offset with
offenders having to pay for the costs of the tests and proceeds
from confiscation of vehicles of drink drivers.
4.3 The British struggle with alcohol will
be helped by having this nudge not to have a second drink when
someone is driving.
4.4 Care should be taken that any tightening
of drink and drug law is not interpreted as acceptance of speeding.
Given a choice of being hit at 30 mph by a driver over the limit
or at 35 by a sober driver is an easy decision. We are very concerned
about the disparity between penalties for impaired driving with
that of speeding, including the proposed graduated speeding penalties.
As noted by research published in Australia some 13 years ago
where the drink drive limit is already 50mg/100ml, on roads with
a speed limit of 60 km/h, "the risk of involvement in a casualty
crash associated with that free travelling speed is almost the
same as the risk associated with the blood alcohol concentration.
Hence, the risk is similar for 0.05 and 65; for 0.08 and 68; for.12
and 72, and so on." (Kloeden et al, 1997). A review
of traffic law enforcement penalties is needed to ensure the punishment
matches the relative burden of risk, particularly with speeding,
the only offence conducted by the majority of drivers (at least
on higher speed roads), while also receiving the lowest fixed
penalty possible.
5. What would be the implications of such
changes for enforcement?
5.1 Enforcement is critical into making
this reduction effective. We support Sir Peter North's recommendation
to include drink and drug driving in the Offences Brought to Justice
so that the efforts of individual police forces are monitored
and compared. On the basis of the greater toll of death caused
by drink driving than knife crime, this is also an argument for
including speeding in the Offences Brought to Justice as speeding
kills more than drink driving.
5.2 Enforcement must not be the responsibility
of the traffic police alone. For years, ACPO has said that roads
policing could be devolved and it is important that motoring offences
are shared with borough police, including safer neighbourhood
teams. Through our North West group, we are aware that Merseyside
Police required individual borough commanders to undertake a minimum
number of drink drive tests.
5.3 We encourage the extension of confiscating
the vehicles of serial or severely impaired first time drink drive
offenders. The statistics show that few drink or drug drivers
are ever imprisoned and we believe that vehicle confiscation should
be much greater used, along with long term of life long driving
bans.
5.4 We do ask that at the time the drink
and/or drug drive laws are changed, that there are specific offences
that mention when someone has been seriously or slightly injured.
At present we are not able to know how many innocent victims of
drink/drug drivers there are and this is not acceptable. These
victims deserve to be counted and included in Violent Crime statistics.
August 2010
| 
